Much of the counter-critique presumes a level of good faith, not to mention good reason, although by the end Naomi Oreskes shows that she gets it -- but she's all we get from the likes of us. In the "strange bedfellows" category for us is Kerry Emanuel, the MIT climate Guy with a capital G who at least uses his Reason with a capital R to understand them as "patently disingenuous," even if he's probably still afraid of Derrida. You can read more about him herehttps://www.desmogblog.com/who-s-afraid-kerry-emanuel-why-republicans-ar...

Man do I hate these pricks...Daniel Price <dr.dan.price@gmail.com> Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 10:12 AMTo: Mike Fortun <profmikefortun@gmail.com>Cc: Kim Fortun <fortunkim@gmail.com>, Lindsay Poirier <lindsay.poirier13@gmail.com>, Brandon Costelloe-Kuehn <brcostelloekuehn@gmail.com>, Bradley Fidler <bradley.reuben.fidler@gmail.com>, Aalok Khandekar <aalok.khandekar@gmail.com>, Ali <ali.kenner@gmail.com>, Sharon Traweek <traweek@history.ucla.edu>, Alli Morgan <amorgan14@gmail.com>, Brian Callahan <bcallah@devio.us>It's a hard political question - and perfect for the Trump era. Those of us who would have been criticizing Hillary for her neoliberalism / ontotheological / technological faith(s) are all of the sudden forced to rally around the center and defend it. Maybe it's better to let it die? Governance after neoliberalism, and not just as a critique? This is what I mean when I say the Asthma Files should go further than Kant, even if the opponents are stuck on Locke/Hume - history is not an even unfolding, after all, and we have to think about the possibilities of radical transformation in the moment. The science of neoliberal subjects patiently expounding the truth through appropriate application of methods is running its course, and we can try to help prop it up, or start offering alternatives.I'm spoiling for a better fight for bigger goals.

Much of the counter-critique presumes a level of good faith, not to mention good reason, although by the end Naomi Oreskes shows that she gets it -- but she's all we get from the likes of us. In the "strange bedfellows" category for us is Kerry Emanuel, the MIT climate Guy with a capital G who at least uses his Reason with a capital R to understand them as "patently disingenuous," even if he's probably still afraid of Derrida. You can read more about him herehttps://www.desmogblog.com/who-s-afraid-kerry-emanuel-why-republicans-ar...

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Daniel Price <dr.dan.price@gmail.com> wrote:It's a hard political question - and perfect for the Trump era. Those of us who would have been criticizing Hillary for her neoliberalism / ontotheological / technological faith(s) are all of the sudden forced to rally around the center and defend it. Maybe it's better to let it die? Governance after neoliberalism, and not just as a critique? This is what I mean when I say the Asthma Files should go further than Kant, even if the opponents are stuck on Locke/Hume - history is not an even unfolding, after all, and we have to think about the possibilities of radical transformation in the moment. The science of neoliberal subjects patiently expounding the truth through appropriate application of methods is running its course, and we can try to help prop it up, or start offering alternatives.I'm spoiling for a better fight for bigger goals.

Much of the counter-critique presumes a level of good faith, not to mention good reason, although by the end Naomi Oreskes shows that she gets it -- but she's all we get from the likes of us. In the "strange bedfellows" category for us is Kerry Emanuel, the MIT climate Guy with a capital G who at least uses his Reason with a capital R to understand them as "patently disingenuous," even if he's probably still afraid of Derrida. You can read more about him herehttps://www.desmogblog.com/who-s-afraid-kerry-emanuel-why-republicans-ar...

Much of the counter-critique presumes a level of good faith, not to mention good reason, although by the end Naomi Oreskes shows that she gets it -- but she's all we get from the likes of us. In the "strange bedfellows" category for us is Kerry Emanuel, the MIT climate Guy with a capital G who at least uses his Reason with a capital R to understand them as "patently disingenuous," even if he's probably still afraid of Derrida. You can read more about him herehttps://www.desmogblog.com/who-s-afraid-kerry-emanuel-why-republicans-ar...

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Kim Fortun <kfortun@uci.edu> wrote:So what are the tactics of the bigger fight?

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Daniel Price <dr.dan.price@gmail.com> wrote:It's a hard political question - and perfect for the Trump era. Those of us who would have been criticizing Hillary for her neoliberalism / ontotheological / technological faith(s) are all of the sudden forced to rally around the center and defend it. Maybe it's better to let it die? Governance after neoliberalism, and not just as a critique? This is what I mean when I say the Asthma Files should go further than Kant, even if the opponents are stuck on Locke/Hume - history is not an even unfolding, after all, and we have to think about the possibilities of radical transformation in the moment. The science of neoliberal subjects patiently expounding the truth through appropriate application of methods is running its course, and we can try to help prop it up, or start offering alternatives.I'm spoiling for a better fight for bigger goals.

Much of the counter-critique presumes a level of good faith, not to mention good reason, although by the end Naomi Oreskes shows that she gets it -- but she's all we get from the likes of us. In the "strange bedfellows" category for us is Kerry Emanuel, the MIT climate Guy with a capital G who at least uses his Reason with a capital R to understand them as "patently disingenuous," even if he's probably still afraid of Derrida. You can read more about him herehttps://www.desmogblog.com/who-s-afraid-kerry-emanuel-why-republicans-ar...

I strongly agree with Dan that we need to attend to the marginalia, the processes that make them, and who works there. Locating the margins, finding the edges, and mapping the changes is a challenge, including with big data. Note that it is the people at the edge of technosci who tend to/care for/curate the data. Find the data workers, along with the uncollected/data and discarded contract workers [including former students/postdocs].

Cultivated governance - not just pretending that the margins will speak for themselves if only freed from the center; not losing trust in the people at the margins; working to engage with what emerges as trustworthy, in those margins. I'm sure that's not a complete list....

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Kim Fortun <kfortun@uci.edu> wrote:So what are the tactics of the bigger fight?

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Daniel Price <dr.dan.price@gmail.com> wrote:It's a hard political question - and perfect for the Trump era. Those of us who would have been criticizing Hillary for her neoliberalism / ontotheological / technological faith(s) are all of the sudden forced to rally around the center and defend it. Maybe it's better to let it die? Governance after neoliberalism, and not just as a critique? This is what I mean when I say the Asthma Files should go further than Kant, even if the opponents are stuck on Locke/Hume - history is not an even unfolding, after all, and we have to think about the possibilities of radical transformation in the moment. The science of neoliberal subjects patiently expounding the truth through appropriate application of methods is running its course, and we can try to help prop it up, or start offering alternatives.I'm spoiling for a better fight for bigger goals.

Much of the counter-critique presumes a level of good faith, not to mention good reason, although by the end Naomi Oreskes shows that she gets it -- but she's all we get from the likes of us. In the "strange bedfellows" category for us is Kerry Emanuel, the MIT climate Guy with a capital G who at least uses his Reason with a capital R to understand them as "patently disingenuous," even if he's probably still afraid of Derrida. You can read more about him herehttps://www.desmogblog.com/who-s-afraid-kerry-emanuel-why-republicans-ar...Man do I hate these pricks...

-- Kim FortunChair, Department of AnthropologyUC Irvine

Daniel Price <dr.dan.price@gmail.com> Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 7:36 PMTo: Sharon Traweek <traweek@history.ucla.edu>Cc: Kim Fortun <kfortun@uci.edu>, Mike Fortun <profmikefortun@gmail.com>, Kim Fortun <fortunkim@gmail.com>, Lindsay Poirier <lindsay.poirier13@gmail.com>, Brandon Costelloe-Kuehn <brcostelloekuehn@gmail.com>, Bradley Fidler <bradley.reuben.fidler@gmail.com>, Aalok Khandekar <aalok.khandekar@gmail.com>, Ali <ali.kenner@gmail.com>, Alli Morgan <amorgan14@gmail.com>, Brian Callahan <bcallah@devio.us>Just to pile on with Sharon, too - an aspect of the overall problem with technology, and what ties it so deeply to the ways we think about property rights, is the idea that one is properly attending to governance when one does only that which is completely "owned". My ethical commitment, like my scientific views, are limited to what I have consciously signed onto. The problem is that an ethical commitment that doesn't start from contracts, like an epistemology that doesn't start from certainty, is limitless. Irigaray's very helpful in thinking this (which is why I tried to point in that direction for my bit in Displacements). For the point about governance, it's that you shouldn't think of governance as self-referential, or about control that returns to the self's conception of what should happen. A nurtured governance is one where the expanding demands of thought are encouraged, and the capacity to respond to limitless demands is nurtured. That the practical exigencies of politicians making decisions embody the demand, and that the politician either responds by insisting on somehow returning to an ideal / point of control in terms of properties / possession or by embracing a limitless demand as the task itself, makes the emphasis on governance in air pollution science so resonant.Best,Dan

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 4:13 PM, Sharon Traweek <traweek@history.ucla.edu> wrote:HI,As you can tell from the rest of this message, I am teaching about these issues now in a course on Gender, Science, and Theory. Maybe you will find the links helpful.

I strongly agree with Dan that we need to attend to the marginalia, the processes that make them, and who works there. Locating the margins, finding the edges, and mapping the changes is a challenge, including with big data. Note that it is the people at the edge of technosci who tend to/care for/curate the data. Find the data workers, along with the uncollected/data and discarded contract workers [including former students/postdocs].

Cultivated governance - not just pretending that the margins will speak for themselves if only freed from the center; not losing trust in the people at the margins; working to engage with what emerges as trustworthy, in those margins. I'm sure that's not a complete list....

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Kim Fortun <kfortun@uci.edu> wrote:So what are the tactics of the bigger fight?

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Daniel Price <dr.dan.price@gmail.com> wrote:It's a hard political question - and perfect for the Trump era. Those of us who would have been criticizing Hillary for her neoliberalism / ontotheological / technological faith(s) are all of the sudden forced to rally around the center and defend it. Maybe it's better to let it die? Governance after neoliberalism, and not just as a critique? This is what I mean when I say the Asthma Files should go further than Kant, even if the opponents are stuck on Locke/Hume - history is not an even unfolding, after all, and we have to think about the possibilities of radical transformation in the moment. The science of neoliberal subjects patiently expounding the truth through appropriate application of methods is running its course, and we can try to help prop it up, or start offering alternatives.I'm spoiling for a better fight for bigger goals.

Much of the counter-critique presumes a level of good faith, not to mention good reason, although by the end Naomi Oreskes shows that she gets it -- but she's all we get from the likes of us. In the "strange bedfellows" category for us is Kerry Emanuel, the MIT climate Guy with a capital G who at least uses his Reason with a capital R to understand them as "patently disingenuous," even if he's probably still afraid of Derrida. You can read more about him herehttps://www.desmogblog.com/who-s-afraid-kerry-emanuel-why-republicans-ar...Man do I hate these pricks...

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 7:36 PM, Daniel Price <dr.dan.price@gmail.com> wrote:Just to pile on with Sharon, too - an aspect of the overall problem with technology, and what ties it so deeply to the ways we think about property rights, is the idea that one is properly attending to governance when one does only that which is completely "owned". My ethical commitment, like my scientific views, are limited to what I have consciously signed onto. The problem is that an ethical commitment that doesn't start from contracts, like an epistemology that doesn't start from certainty, is limitless. Irigaray's very helpful in thinking this (which is why I tried to point in that direction for my bit in Displacements). For the point about governance, it's that you shouldn't think of governance as self-referential, or about control that returns to the self's conception of what should happen. A nurtured governance is one where the expanding demands of thought are encouraged, and the capacity to respond to limitless demands is nurtured. That the practical exigencies of politicians making decisions embody the demand, and that the politician either responds by insisting on somehow returning to an ideal / point of control in terms of properties / possession or by embracing a limitless demand as the task itself, makes the emphasis on governance in air pollution science so resonant.Best,Dan

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 4:13 PM, Sharon Traweek <traweek@history.ucla.edu> wrote:HI,As you can tell from the rest of this message, I am teaching about these issues now in a course on Gender, Science, and Theory. Maybe you will find the links helpful.

I strongly agree with Dan that we need to attend to the marginalia, the processes that make them, and who works there. Locating the margins, finding the edges, and mapping the changes is a challenge, including with big data. Note that it is the people at the edge of technosci who tend to/care for/curate the data. Find the data workers, along with the uncollected/data and discarded contract workers [including former students/postdocs].

Cultivated governance - not just pretending that the margins will speak for themselves if only freed from the center; not losing trust in the people at the margins; working to engage with what emerges as trustworthy, in those margins. I'm sure that's not a complete list....

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Kim Fortun <kfortun@uci.edu> wrote:So what are the tactics of the bigger fight?

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 10:12 AM, Daniel Price <dr.dan.price@gmail.com> wrote:It's a hard political question - and perfect for the Trump era. Those of us who would have been criticizing Hillary for her neoliberalism / ontotheological / technological faith(s) are all of the sudden forced to rally around the center and defend it. Maybe it's better to let it die? Governance after neoliberalism, and not just as a critique? This is what I mean when I say the Asthma Files should go further than Kant, even if the opponents are stuck on Locke/Hume - history is not an even unfolding, after all, and we have to think about the possibilities of radical transformation in the moment. The science of neoliberal subjects patiently expounding the truth through appropriate application of methods is running its course, and we can try to help prop it up, or start offering alternatives.I'm spoiling for a better fight for bigger goals.

Much of the counter-critique presumes a level of good faith, not to mention good reason, although by the end Naomi Oreskes shows that she gets it -- but she's all we get from the likes of us. In the "strange bedfellows" category for us is Kerry Emanuel, the MIT climate Guy with a capital G who at least uses his Reason with a capital R to understand them as "patently disingenuous," even if he's probably still afraid of Derrida. You can read more about him herehttps://www.desmogblog.com/who-s-afraid-kerry-emanuel-why-republicans-ar...Man do I hate these pricks...